University degree required to join the police

[V8 Fettler]

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.

The subject was originally about University degrees being required to join the police; as with many threads it has meandered slightly.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Again, you're trying to blame me because you reached the wrong conclusion about my post, you probably need to take some control and stop jumping in feet first. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, we've covered the trust thing in a previous thread.

And you probably need to take some control and be clearer what you're talking about. If you reply to two people talking about trust, and give no indication you're talking about anything other, then the reader will draw such reasonable inferences.

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.

And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.



Plc vs Gov.

But who was voted in at the last general election? Was it not the senior Tory politicians?

The word 'but' was a clear indication you were continuing the theme. Now you're trying to back out of your original point by debating something only you have raised. If you meant something else, you should be clearer.

V8 Fettler said:

I see you're trying to create yet more rules on posting, I take it you enjoy making rules.

I see you're still avoiding the question; Did you threaten to overrule him?

It's a good strategy, if there's a question that's a little uncomfortable then just pretend the person asking it is trying to exercise some element of control upon you and imply they like power / control.

It's not transparent and obvious at all.

Who was talking about support in the original post?

V8 Fettler said:

Again, you're overplaying the importance of trust when you and your colleagues within your profession should be concentrating on gaining support from the public and from your natural supporters in the Tory party.

Irrelevant since the person I replied to was talking about trust. I have added no weight to the matter, I merely replied to someone speculating upon something.

You're the only one who has brought 'support' into the matter of which no one was debating. I'd suggest that's trying to exercise a greater element of control by debating a point only you have raised.

V8 Fettler said:

If the public supported the police in the way they support the NHS then funding for the police would be ring fenced.

Any evidence that's the case or is it just you making casual connections?

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Again, you're trying to blame me because you reached the wrong conclusion about my post, you probably need to take some control and stop jumping in feet first. As I alluded to earlier in this thread, we've covered the trust thing in a previous thread.

And you probably need to take some control and be clearer what you're talking about. If you reply to two people talking about trust, and give no indication you're talking about anything other, then the reader will draw such reasonable inferences.

V8 Fettler said:

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's sad to say that the current government probably has greater public trust than the police. You might wish to address that.

And you've "probably" just made that up because it's what you want to be the case.



Plc vs Gov.

But who was voted in at the last general election? Was it not the senior Tory politicians?

The word 'but' was a clear indication you were continuing the theme. Now you're trying to back out of your original point by debating something only you have raised. If you meant something else, you should be clearer.

V8 Fettler said:

I see you're trying to create yet more rules on posting, I take it you enjoy making rules.

I see you're still avoiding the question; Did you threaten to overrule him?

It's a good strategy, if there's a question that's a little uncomfortable then just pretend the person asking it is trying to exercise some element of control upon you and imply they like power / control.

It's not transparent and obvious at all.

Who was talking about support in the original post?

V8 Fettler said:

Again, you're overplaying the importance of trust when you and your colleagues within your profession should be concentrating on gaining support from the public and from your natural supporters in the Tory party.

Irrelevant since the person I replied to was talking about trust. I have added no weight to the matter, I merely replied to someone speculating upon something.

You're the only one who has brought 'support' into the matter of which no one was debating. I'd suggest that's trying to exercise a greater element of control by debating a point only you have raised.

V8 Fettler said:

If the public supported the police in the way they support the NHS then funding for the police would be ring fenced.

Any evidence that's the case or is it just you making casual connections?

There you go again, setting the rules for posting. Would it help if in future I posted a preamble pre-post describing the scope and purpose of my forthcoming post?

The word "but" can mean an alternative view.

I clicked on your youtube link, observed that it featured the grandstanding Paxman and the Welsh politician who attempts to speak with a bizarre English accent, I then closed the tab due to its irrelevance to the issue of the lack of meaningful public support for the police, which is an issue that you avoid.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that you believe that the support of the public is irrelevant.

As an "only one" am I not permitted to post an alternative view on your threads?

The evidence re: public support for the NHS compared to public support for the police is that politicians run away from any effective cost cutting of NHS budgets due to the likely public backlash, see latest bail-out for the NHS today as an example.

[Devil2575]

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.

The subject was originally about University degrees being required to join the police; as with many threads it has meandered slightly.

That's not the point.

The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.

You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

There you go again, setting the rules for posting. Would it help if in future I posted a preamble pre-post describing the scope and purpose of my forthcoming post?

There you go again, refusing to answer a reasonable question because it's not a comfortable and then pretending as if someone asking question is some form of control.

V8 Fettler said:

The word "but" can mean an alternative view.

Not when piggybacking off the established subject matter. If you were talking about something else then you need to make it clear.

V8 Fettler said:

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that you believe that the support of the public is irrelevant.

And I'm not surprised you twist what I wrote.

V8 Fettler said:

As an "only one" am I not permitted to post an alternative view on your threads?

Whose thread?

V8 Fettler said:

The evidence re: public support for the NHS compared to public support for the police is that politicians run away from any effective cost cutting of NHS budgets due to the likely public backlash, see latest bail-out for the NHS today as an example.

It would be a big risk politically, but to extrapolate that with there being a lack of support in other areas is casual and baseless.

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.

The subject was originally about University degrees being required to join the police; as with many threads it has meandered slightly.

That's not the point.

The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.

You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.

Was your crystal ball broken too?

Last time more than one person disagreed with him he accused the posters of "ganging-up" on him. I am surprised a similar accusation hasn't arisen yet.

[carinaman]

Play the Crystal Ball not the man?

You can support the police and not trust them.

Some are bad apples, not all of them.

From experience I don't think a degree can be used as a reliable predictor as to whether a police officer is likely to be straight or corrupt.

[anonymous-user]

I wonder if we'll see some consistency with V8 Fettler's link between support and funding given what's happened with today's Spending Review.

If the cuts to the police = lack of support, and proposed cuts = a continuation of this, then what does "real term increases" this term mean? It must mean lots of support, right? To go from a negative to a positive?

I look forward to seeing the excuse why this link doesn't work the other way around.

[carinaman]

Autumn statement says police cuts stopped.

Some could have viewed police cuts as an opportunity to surgically remove dead wood and bad apples.

Degree qualified officers would have stopped the Council and police in Rotherham covering up and protecting industrial scale child sexual exploitation?

Degree qualified police entrants will be more malleable to Common Purpose ideology and methodology?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 25th November 15:17

[grumpy52]

I have worked with many people who had degrees and have come to the following conclusions .
Most degrees have nothing to do with the work they now do .
Most with degrees are fine with the theory of the job but not so good with the hands on side of it .
Many used university to delay entering the work force.
Most are less able at the job than industry trained people .
These are just my own findings in the industries I have experience of .

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

Some could have viewed police cuts as an opportunity to surgically remove dead wood and bad apples.

Police officers can't be made redundant, unlike 99% of what you post.

[carinaman]

La Liga said:

carinaman said:

Some could have viewed police cuts as an opportunity to surgically remove dead wood and bad apples.

Police officers can't be made redundant, unlike 99% of what you post.

I know. I watched the press conference about the failings of West Mercia police in the killing of Georgia Williams by Jamie Reynolds.

Playing the man and not the ball again La Liga?

At least if you're playing the man here, you're not being paid as a police officer or IPCC person to play procedures.

[Derek Smith]

La Liga said:

carinaman said:

Some could have viewed police cuts as an opportunity to surgically remove dead wood and bad apples.

Police officers can't be made redundant, unlike 99% of what you post.

You are too bad.

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

I know.

Then why write something you know not to be true / possible?

How am I 'playing the man' when I am talking about your general posting as opposed to talking about you? If I think most of what you post is rubbish that isn't 'playing the man'. There's a difference.

[carinaman]

La Liga said:

carinaman said:

I know.

Then why write something you know not to be true / possible?

How am I 'playing the man' when I am talking about your general posting as opposed to talking about you? If I think most of what you post is rubbish that isn't 'playing the man'. There's a difference.

So what's all this stuff in the press about cuts if police officers can't be got rid of?

It's just FUD? It's just noise?

'They'll cut officers!' when they cannot be cut?

I could have mistakenly been harbouring hopes that the cuts axe would fall on some bad apples.


I can't see a need for police officers to be degree qualified. The idea that the police will be 'professionalised' by making it a graduate entry role is wrong.

[sparkythecat]

grumpy52 said:

I have worked with many people who had degrees and have come to the following conclusions .
Most degrees have nothing to do with the work they now do .
Most with degrees are fine with the theory of the job but not so good with the hands on side of it .
Many used university to delay entering the work force.
Most are less able at the job than industry trained people .
These are just my own findings in the industries I have experience of .

The Police aren't looking for recruits with just any old degree. They are now wanting recruits with specific degrees in Policing.
If you have a look at the prospectuses for universities offering these courses, you'll see that they address some of the issues that you've raised.

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/courses/bsc_hons_policing_c...

[Cat]

carinaman said:

So what's all this stuff in the press about cuts if police officers can't be got rid of?

It's just FUD? It's just noise?

'They'll cut officers!' when they cannot be cut?

I take it you are being deliberately dim? Just because officers can't be made redundant doesn't mean the number of officers can't be cut. It's not rocket science - when officers retire or resign they're not replaced.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Wednesday 25th November 17:55

[Derek Smith]

Cat said:

carinaman said:

So what's all this stuff in the press about cuts if police officers can't be got rid of?

It's just FUD? It's just noise?

'They'll cut officers!' when they cannot be cut?

I take it you are being deliberately dim? Just because officers can't be made redundant doesn't mean the number of officers can't be cut. It's not rocket science - when officers retire or resign they're not replaced.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Wednesday 25th November 17:55

I was told that around 50 mid-service federated police officers left one of the metropolitan forces, but not the Met, in a month and that the average over the last few months has been 30. Mid-service = the most cost-effective officers and they are normally trained up for their role and experienced. Or, to put it another way, the force is hemorrhaging their core strength.

Who would have thought, eh? Well, actually, just about everybody with any sense.

[carinaman]

La Liga said:

How am I 'playing the man' when I am talking about your general posting as opposed to talking about you? If I think most of what you post is rubbish that isn't 'playing the man'. There's a difference.

Fair point.

'Cuts' is emotive language.

Derek Smith has mentioned experienced officers leaving. That's more natural wastage.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Derek Smith has mentioned experienced officers leaving. That's more natural wastage.

I'm not sure it is 'natural'. In fact for the service it is the exact opposite. Federated officers at 12-15 years are starting to be at the top of their game. Experience gives you strength. You go to work hoping that something big will happen, something to test you as you know you can cope. You know more or less where you will end up and have a plan. Your boss, especially if they are after promotion, will depend on you to a great extent, and those below you look to you for help and support, and those above you are frightened of you because you know the score exactly.

Out on the street, or on enquiries, you are the one who can be depended to do the job without supervision and correctly. You can trust such officers to cover all aspects.

Not only that, but you know you are doing a good job 'cause the victims tell you so. You do and say the right thing at the right time. The Job is good.

Up until the 80s around 50% of those who left the Job before 30 years did so between 4 and 7 years. After that the % dropped quite quickly and those of 15 years tended to last. Some were picked of by other employers, but the way the pension contributions were crafted meant that it cost a lot to leave. For 50 or so to leave in a month - I'm glad I haven't got to cope with that loss.

These will have probably gone onto better jobs, perhaps emigrated to countries where their experience is valued, such as Canada. Losing such officers hurts more than simple reductions in front line officers.

I know anecdotes really irritate a specific person on SP&L, so: I was in the control room for a murder, att murder, kidnap and threats to kill one day. When my relief arrived and I briefed him on the now resolved kerfuffle his face fell. He wanted it. Who, with around 18 years in the Job, would not?

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

There you go again, setting the rules for posting. Would it help if in future I posted a preamble pre-post describing the scope and purpose of my forthcoming post?

There you go again, refusing to answer a reasonable question because it's not a comfortable and then pretending as if someone asking question is some form of control.

V8 Fettler said:

The word "but" can mean an alternative view.

Not when piggybacking off the established subject matter. If you were talking about something else then you need to make it clear.

V8 Fettler said:

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that you believe that the support of the public is irrelevant.

And I'm not surprised you twist what I wrote.

V8 Fettler said:

As an "only one" am I not permitted to post an alternative view on your threads?

Whose thread?

V8 Fettler said:

The evidence re: public support for the NHS compared to public support for the police is that politicians run away from any effective cost cutting of NHS budgets due to the likely public backlash, see latest bail-out for the NHS today as an example.

It would be a big risk politically, but to extrapolate that with there being a lack of support in other areas is casual and baseless.

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Devil2575 said:

V8 Fettler said:

I'll spell it out for you: the Tories were elected irrespective of levels of trust. If you want data to support this then count the number of Tory MPs.

I get that, it's just up until the last few posts no one else has been talking about support, the subject has been trust.

The subject was originally about University degrees being required to join the police; as with many threads it has meandered slightly.

That's not the point.

The subject of the side discussion that started when Rovinghawk made his comment was trust.

You then randomly started talking about support like it is the same thing as trust. It isn't.

Was your crystal ball broken too?

Last time more than one person disagreed with him he accused the posters of "ganging-up" on him. I am surprised a similar accusation hasn't arisen yet.

Again, I've already answered your garbled question re: "Who was talking about support from RH's original point ... ". You require me to respond purely on issues of trust, I chose to highlight the fact that the Tories were elected irrespective of trust issues. I suspect that it annoys you intensely that you have minimal control of how I post. To use the vernacular: live with it.

Thank you for telling when, where and how I can use the word "but". I'll choose to use the word "but" whenever I want, hope that's OK with you. And if it isn't then you'll have to live with it.

You don't appear to realise how valuable the support of the public is. Your federation certainly doesn't, but then that's what happens when you're in a bunker.

I assumed that you had some sort of possession of this thread, given that you attempt to control how posters post on this thread.

Most posts on PH meander, it can be difficult to follow the meandering from a bunker. You appear to believe that you have some sort of control over the meanderings a thread can take, you don't.

The current treble team is inferior to the previous treble team, but it would be useful if you just elect a spokesman.